M. Naresh Kumar Vs. B. Nagalaxmi

.....company after losing case in three forums below, filing slp in supreme court - leave to appeal granted but appeal ultimately found as without any merit costs quantified at rs.15,000 imposed on appellant company while dismissing appeal . insurance act (4 of 1938) section 64-um (2): object and intendment - appellant insurance company insured heavy vehicle owned by respondent - vehicle fell into a 300 feet deep ditch, due to which there was extensive damage to the vehicle - damage was surveyed by three licensed surveyors/loss assessors - third surveyor assessed the loss as rs 63,771 and appellant company offered this amount to respondent - respondent however claimed actual expenses said to have been incurred by him towards repair of truck plus interest paid by him to the bank for obtaining loan for repair - district consumer forum directed appellant company to pay rs 1,58,409 along with interest @ rs 12% p.a. - upheld by state commission as well as by national commission - held, although assessment of loss by approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, yet surveyors report is not the last and final word. it is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. the approved surveyors report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of loss suffered by insured but such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured. - buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960. 2. the respondent-landlady had filed a petition for eviction against the appellant-tenant on the ground, inter alia, that he had committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of september, october and november 1983. the rent controller as well as the appellate authority held against the landlady, finding that for seven or eight years the tenant had been sending rent once every two or three months and the landlady had not protested;.....1983 did not arise because it fell due only after the eviction petition was filed.3. the high court took into account a letter dated 27-10-1980 sent by the landlady's advocates in reply to a notice addressed by the tenant. therein the landlady's advocates stated: 'please direct your client to send the rents regularly every month. if your client commits any default in future, our client will not condone the same'. the high court found that, in spite of this notice, the tenant had 'repeated the payment of rent on irregular intervals'. this amounted, in its view, to wilful default as he had been put on notice that in case he repeated the practice, he would be liable to face the consequences.4. it would appear that the high court did not take account of the fact that the letter written by the advocates for the landlady was dated 27-10-1980 and that even thereafter, until the eviction petition was filed on 2-12-1983, rent had been paid and accepted at the same irregular intervals. in other words, earlier practice had continued. the high court ought not to have interfered, in the circumstances, with the findings of the authorities below. the high court also does not appear to have taken note of the fact found that the default, if any, prior to the filing of the eviction petition was only of two months and not three.5. the appeal is allowed. the judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the revision petition is dismissed. no order as to costs.